The Obama administration fixes ACA website - it's fine now

Rick wrote:

LOL wrote: You just have to love CBS news reporters, right on the ball, 3 years late.

If they were paying attention this was well known in 2010 when the law that nobody read was passed and the MSM Bimbos were all praising it. Pretty pathetic but predictable. Go CBS, inform the sheep.

Yes Martha, your insurance rates are going up, way up. Enjoy. But you get a free Flu shot. ($25)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-5 ... -coverage/

There was a time when the press was critical/sceptical about those who work for the people (supposedly)... they were there to protect our best interests. Now they are lapdogs for whoever they want in power and they TRUST who they vote for so there's little need for hardball questions. The press needs as big an overhaul and general flushing as Washington does.

BUT, we as a people, ALLOWED it to happen.....I keep re-visiting the hard working,"leave NO
stone unturned ", dogged research/efforts/reporting of Watergate and the truly dedicated
individuals (legendary NOW) that brought Nixon down......THAT mode of media is obsolete and
the reason is because of $$$$$$/political influence in government.....WHEN do we demand a
media that operates for the PEOPLE of the United States of America?

homeagain wrote:

Rick wrote:

LOL wrote: You just have to love CBS news reporters, right on the ball, 3 years late.

If they were paying attention this was well known in 2010 when the law that nobody read was passed and the MSM Bimbos were all praising it. Pretty pathetic but predictable. Go CBS, inform the sheep.

Yes Martha, your insurance rates are going up, way up. Enjoy. But you get a free Flu shot. ($25)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-5 ... -coverage/

There was a time when the press was critical/sceptical about those who work for the people (supposedly)... they were there to protect our best interests. Now they are lapdogs for whoever they want in power and they TRUST who they vote for so there's little need for hardball questions. The press needs as big an overhaul and general flushing as Washington does.

BUT, we as a people, ALLOWED it to happen.....I keep re-visiting the hard working,"leave NO
stone unturned ", dogged research/efforts/reporting of Watergate and the truly dedicated
individuals (legendary NOW) that brought Nixon down......THAT mode of media is obsolete and
the reason is because of $$$$$$/political influence in government.....WHEN do we demand a
media that operates for the PEOPLE of the United States of America?

Funny you mention Watergate, that's what I think of too when I think of real reporters/journalists. Maybe that's around the time when journalists started thinking their opinions were not only important but also desired by the people. Sort of like how many celebrities seem to be these days.

I saw on NBC news last night that one of the reasons for the problems at the federal exchange website was because of a late change where they didn't want to let users see the premiums right away. Instead they want you to first create an account and divulge personal info. In fact, Colorado is one of the few states that will show you any premium information without first registering...

A growing consensus of IT experts, outside and inside the government, have figured out a principal reason why the website for Obamacare’s federally-sponsored insurance exchange is crashing. Healthcare.gov forces you to create an account and enter detailed personal information before you can start shopping. This, in turn, creates a massive traffic bottleneck, as the government verifies your information and decides whether or not you’re eligible for subsidies. HHS bureaucrats knew this would make the website run more slowly. But they were more afraid that letting people see the underlying cost of Obamacare’s insurance plans would scare people away.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/14/obamacares-website-is-crashing-because-it-doesnt-want-you-to-know-health-plans-true-costs/

Yesterday, the New York Times reported that only the Kentucky, Colorado, Nevada, and Washington state exchanges enable consumers to search for the providers covered in the various plans. This is a critical piece of information for consumers because so many of the particularly lower cost plans were able to develop lower rates by excluding wide swaths of doctors and hospitals. A consumer would be foolish to buy a health plan without knowing which doctors and hospitals it covers!

http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/2013/10/week-two-of-obamacare-federal-health.html#more

And what about Obama's promise (now a lie) that you can keep your existing policy if you want to? Tell that to about 16 million people (and these are just the ones with individual policies, it doesn't include those with group policies who will lose their coverage)...

The U.S. individual health insurance market currently totals about 19 million people. Because the Obama administration's regulations on grandfathering existing plans were so stringent about 85% of those, 16 million, are not grandfathered and must comply with Obamacare at their next renewal. The rules are very complex. For example, if you had an individual plan in March of 2010 when the law was passed and you only increased the deductible from $1,000 to $1,500 in the years since, your plan has lost its grandfather status and it will no longer be available to you when it would have renewed in 2014.

These 16 million people are now receiving letters from their carriers saying they are losing their current coverage and must re-enroll in order to avoid a break in coverage and comply with the new health law's benefit mandates––the vast majority by January 1. Most of these will be seeing some pretty big rate increases.

But unless they live in Washington state, Nevada, Colorado, and Kentucky, they can't now get on an exchange site to see their plan options, new prices, and provider directories so they can make an informed decision before they lose their coverage.

Who really wants to give out personal information to a website that's clearly broken? How do we know how secure that information is? And these "navigators" ... what gives us the confidencethat we can trust them with our info when they don't get background checks? If this law was a new car, it wouldn't yet be safe to drive beyond my driveway.

I may be wrong, BUT,isn't that EXACTLY what you do when sign on to any e-record thru a medical provider?.....I have Kaiser and KP.org is what they WANT you to utilize in communicating
with doctors, for labs,appts,test results....while I know that the information is "out there" in
their electronic databases,why would I KNOWINGLY provide the cyber information in a format
that would be easy to access/intercept. (I am NOT a tek-guru, I just attempt to mitigate the
"exposure" and fly as low under the radar as possible,NOT that it truly matters, BUT I try.)....
don't do facebook, mylife,twitter,other social media.....LESS exposure....

We were told these exchanges would be a "market place" where consumers could go to shop and choose among policies.

What "market place" have you ever been to where you need to give your name, address, names of all who live with you, social security numbers, net worth, income, expenses, bank accounts, etc. just to see the prices of the goods sold and learn just what it is you are buying?

Is that really the government version of "shopping"? :faint:

I can go on ehealthinsurance and shop plans get prices and they also have a subsidy calculator with income estimate entry.

Only have to enter ZIP, Gender, approx DOB no identity or login ( except IP address log of course.)

Regarding grandfather plans, yep I bet a lot of people got burned on changing your deductible and losing "grandfather status" My ins company offered to do that 2 years ago to save money, and they do not warn you. Its up to you to read the 2000p ACA Too bad, you don't get to keep your plan. Go to Obamacare web site and enroll. Enjoy!

Rick wrote: Who really wants to give out personal information to a website that's clearly broken? How do we know how secure that information is? And these "navigators" ... what gives us the confidencethat we can trust them with our info when they don't get background checks? If this law was a new car, it wouldn't yet be safe to drive beyond my driveway.

They already have all the personal information that you are requested to enter on the application forms.

They want this information from you so they can see if it matches with information they already have on you such as IRS info, credit ratings, employment info.

You enter info, they pass it on to the IRS, Equifax (sp?), homeland security etc, all through the EID which is like a traffic cop, routing info to and from the respective agencies and companies.

It's all a validation check against existing data. If what you are giving them is not secure, then nothing in the various federal databases and private companies like Equifax are secure (and that is another story in itself).

I don't see this as a problem.

homeagain wrote: I may be wrong, BUT,isn't that EXACTLY what you do when sign on to any e-record thru a medical provider?.....I have Kaiser and KP.org is what they WANT you to utilize in communicating
with doctors, for labs,appts,test results....while I know that the information is "out there" in
their electronic databases,why would I KNOWINGLY provide the cyber information in a format
that would be easy to access/intercept. (I am NOT a tek-guru, I just attempt to mitigate the
"exposure" and fly as low under the radar as possible,NOT that it truly matters, BUT I try.)....
don't do facebook, mylife,twitter,other social media.....LESS exposure....

Yes, you do have to provide some personal info when you SIGN UP for health insurance. Though you don't usually need to provide much financial info (or info about others in your home). You could at least look at the policy details and prices without providing any personal info.

I'm talking about simply shopping for Obamacare insurance. Why be forced to provide all that private info just to see the policies and prices? I can determine if I qualify for subsidies at a later time after I see the prices and details first. That's how it's being done in Colorado at least.

pineinthegrass wrote: We were told these exchanges would be a "market place" where consumers could go to shop and choose among policies.

What "market place" have you ever been to where you need to give your name, address, names of all who live with you, social security numbers, net worth, income, expenses, bank accounts, etc. just to see the prices of the goods sold and learn just what it is you are buying?

Is that really the government version of "shopping"? :faint:

Because they have to know if you qualify for subsidies. They have to know if they should route you to your state exchange if your state has one, they have to know if you are who you say you are before and if you're eligible for the various plans under the exchange.

They can't do that without the various data points that they request from you.

This is not just as simple as looking at a catalog.